Howie Kurtz is screaming about news outlets not calling Obama a flip-flopper on the D.C. gun ban.  As Howie presents it, news outlets are irresponsible not to parrot this Repub talking point and to do so focused solely on the statement issued by Obama's campaign in November 2007.  Evidentally Howie thinks it isn't important for him, in pointing out the potential conflict, to readily note statements directly from Obama both in a speech and in a debate in February 2007 that are entirely consistent with his present position.  Which would, of course, undercut the Republican fantasy that Obama is changing his position now that the primaries are over.  So lets take a look at the three most readily available statements from Obama on this issue to see for ourselves just what a stooge role Howie is playing.  

1) The statement "HIS CAMPAIGN" gave the Chicago Tribune in November 2007.  

"Senator Obama.believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional."
So, having read the majority Supreme Court opinion I can say with confidence that the first sentence is fully in line with the five justices in the majority.  It notes the "rights of law-abiding gun owners" and the "right of local communities to enact common sense laws."  The second sentence is the one Kurtz hangs his hat on, ignoring the first, and ignoring that it isn't an embrace of the D.C. gun ban, but a statement from his campaign that Obama thinks it is constitutional. So there is no real conflict, unless Kurtz thinks it disqualifies a candidate not to be able to predict what the Court will do.

2)  The ABC debate in April. 

Gibson: Is that [the D.C. Gun ban] a law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.

....GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns? And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.  

Again, these prior statements from Obama are consistent with his recent statements and also with the rationale of the majority of the Supremes.  With one exception, after studying the ordinance, and all the briefing, they came to the conclusion that the D.C. gun ban was effectively an all-out ban on handguns and ruled D.C. could do a lot, but it couldn't prevent people from having registered handguns in their home in an assembled condition.

3)  Finally, Obama's recent statements are entirely consistent with those he made in February 2008, while the Democratic nomination race was in full bloom.  As reported by ABC news here http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2008/02/obama-and-guns.html 
"A day after the tragic shootings at NIU, Barack Obama has revealed that he thinks the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun. ...
By embracing the individual rights approach, Obama is bucking gun control groups and states like New York, which have taken the more orthodox position that the 2nd Amendment only protects a state’s right—and that cities like Washington, D.C. can therefore ban all guns if they choose. ...
Obama is actually straddling the issue somewhat like the Bush Administration did when it filed a brief in the case last month. He does support individual rights, but says—and this is the qualifier--the government can impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. And he then suggests that pretty much any existing laws are reasonable.  “There's been a long standing argument among constitutional scholars about whether the 2nd Amendment referred simply to militias or whether it spoke to an individual right to possess arms,” Obama said. “I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.”  ...
He declined, just as the Bush Administration did, to take a position on whether the DC gun ban violates the 2nd Amendment. He said instead that states and cities should have broad latitude to regulate guns—even if the Constitution guarantees an individual right to own them. ...
 “I think there's a lot of room before you (start) bumping against a constitutional barrier for us to institute some of the common-sense gun laws that I just spoke about.”

---
So Howie, where exactly is the conflict?  And how can you falsely report that Obama is switching positions now when there is tape of him and news reports of him making essentially the same points he is now back in the midst of the February campaign?  Oh that's right.  It's too hard for you to google something when you can instead simply be a Republican stooge on an issue and regurgitate their press releases.